What do you think the ''Absolute Truth'' is, why you would believe
someone who KNOWS it would lie and decieve unbeknowing people?
jan.
Last edited:
Pure, Single, Positive Bases of Existence are Absurd
- Thread starter SciWriter
- Start date
What do you think the ''Absolute Truth'' is, why you would believe
someone who KNOWS it would lie and decieve unbeknowing people?
jan.
I am talking about what theists often do: ridicule and despise others.
Claiming to talk about God or on God's behalf should mean something.
Claiming to talk about God or on God's behalf should not be done lightly.
At least nominally, we are talking about God, the Creator, Maintainer and Controller of the Universe, of everyone and everything, the Summum Bonum.
We're not talking about just some nobody.
Does
Thou shalt not take the name of thy Lord in vain
mean something to you, as a theist??
Or are you suggesting that we should not take people who claim to be theists, seriously?
Last edited:
What makes you think this is what I believe??
What makes you think that I believe that someone who knows the Absolute Truth would lie and deceive people??
Surely the Absolute Truth isn't just anything, and so people ought not to speak lightly about it, but only claim to know it when they are truly sure - as opposed to presenting their speculatins as being "the truth about God."
But if you look at what goes on "in the name of God" - surely much of that cannot be considered to actually be in the name of God.
For example, militant theists who even kill people in the name of God, or televangelists, are by other theists often considered to not be acting in the name of God.
So does it work like this - theists have views, views are judgments and judgements are all about ridiculing and despising others?
it does
.
it isn't
I am suggesting that there are different levels of realization of theism - kannistha right through to uttama - or more specifically from sraddha to prema
Perhaps the context is just personal here, but if these are meant to be general responses, they are not good ones.
It is my experience that many theists are simply repeating what they have been told. In other words their belief is based simply on repeating authority, often authorities they have little knowledge of, and not on more profound experiences. This can be demonstrated when two such believers from different traditions speak with certainty about what God 'says'. At least one of them, in the very common disagreements such situations can raise, is far from the source, whatever that source is.
In other words: saying what God believes, wants, says should be something deeper than what a tape recorder or a parrot can do with someone else's words.
The latter is harder to prove, but it sure seems to me that some if not many if not most theists, take lightly the interaction with people who do not have the same experiences and certainty they have - or the same religion. Their intimacy with God, if it exists, has not helped them much with dealing with other humans.
I just responded to a post elsewhere where one theist made it sound like it was a simple and easy thing to hear what 'The Father' wants you to do. This, it seems to me, is taking their role lightly or reveals such a huge lack of understanding of humans, I have to question whether they have really being paying attention to what God was saying.
It all depends on approach and the context one is applying to unify the groups - for instance if one neglects the unifying concept of "improved patient health" one can also cite irrevocable differences according to approach with various health care views
hence the issue of realization, which you generally find the traditions are quite rich in elaborating on
Firstly the most common contingent of anything tends to be the lowest quality (the ol quality vs quantity thing) .. and secondly, if two ideologies are diametrically opposed they tend to create quite a bit of friction - for instance just consider the seemingly quite innocent suggestion most atheists will give at the drop of a hat "belief in god is an imagination"
in a general sense it is quite simple to find a list of suggested course of actions according to theism - applying them to time place and circumstance however does require a bit of realization in order to nous out the detail from the principle.
Let me see if I can fairly paraphrase: once people start working with religion and religious concepts and experiences, they improve, but still exhibit very different levels of ability, integrity, etc.
I'll go from this, though if it was not fair, I can work with whatever new formulation you feel is fair.
Patients generally, but not always, become patients from being considered healthy. This is different in general from theists, so I am not quite sure how to use the analogy. IOW most theists grow up in religious concepts and take these on at an early age. It seems to have slid in the idea of improvement.
Some anyway. But, in any case, those are the traditions, but the focus was theists, here, and what they are doing or what underlies what they are doing.
Well, if one is generalizing, then generalizing about the most common contingent is a better start than the opposite, which is what it seemed you were doing.
Sure, though what minority of theists are we talking about here who have done this?
and that is unusual?
there is the suggestion that our constitutional state is one of existence with god (ie the state we were originally in/ the state where we exhibit the topmost performance of our good qualities) - so IOW conditioned existence has awarded us a deteriorated (ie sick) state of existence
given the cultural framework that comes with religion (ie all teh ceremonies and occasions that compliment things like births, deaths, weddings etc) , why would you expect otherwise?
Well when you are talking about theists aren't you talking about the knowledge base they draw on?
If we are talking what level knowledge is assimilated and distributed on we are not talking about the lowest contingency. For instance I don't think its legitimate to lodge a critique of the scientific process based on high school physics students
regardless of the numbers its how it does and does not work - and regardless whether we are talking about the pastor at the corner church or the disciple seeking the yogi in the Himalayas its all about the same model
I don't think it is clear, as I mentioned. It is also not clear to me that people's 'health' improves when they become religious - becoming religious fitting the analogy of be treated by a health care system.
This descrption does not fit well with what is said in many theisms, including some of the biggies. So if we are talking about the theists themselves, which we are, this is not relevent.
It is not clear to me that people improve via these things or in context, come to mean something when they talk about God or take God talk more than lightly. I am sure it happens, but I don't see it as anything remotely inevitable, even taking into account your proviso around levels and stages. I know plenty of Chrisitans who simply go through the motions, as far as I can tell. I see little progression.
Well, no. I am talking about the theists. They are not transparent sheets of glass through which I can read scripture so I cannot, in a discussion of how theists behave, assume they behave as if they were representations of scripture. And frankly even having to lay this out seems very odd.
Again, we were talking about theists. You made blanket statements about theists, since this is what signal was referring to. I don't think I have critiqued any religions or their processes here. I have focused on theists. So again this seems odd. Perhaps there is something habitual happening here. I have not begun a case of pointing at theists, being critical of them and then drawing conclusions about theism. This seems, however, to be how you are taking my posts.
And again, we are talking about the practitioners, see above.
And the pastor at the corner church would probably disagree with you. As would likely some of the disciples in the Himalayas.
No, this is not what I said.
My point is:
1. Theists, by the power of being theists, have more than just mere "views."
Ordinary people have "views."
But theists (if we are to take them seriously) should be considered to be speaking the absolute truth, and not just mere "views" (or "opinions").
This is why anything that theists say counts for judgment.
2. Theists often do ridicule and despise others.
Anything from the Crusades to religious bullying in schools to interreligious violence in the family and in the work place.
I think it is, all too often.
"A horrible and shocking thing has happened in the land:
The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love it this way. But what will you do in the end?"
Jer. 5:30-1
This would mean, among other things, that an individual person, such as myself or Pineal, would be entitled and justified to assess religious people accord to one's own understanding.
E.g. By your reasoning, I could say about a particular person who claims to be a theist "I don't think this person who claims to be a theist is very advanced. So I shall not abide by what they say."
I guarantee you that many people who claim to be theists would be gravely offended by that (and would declare eternal damnation upon me and such).
By practicing such assessment, I would effectively cut myself off from every religious community.
Secondly, by being so selective in whom one considers advanced or not, the burden of proof for God is placed exclusively on the individual.
This leads to a contradiction with the idea that all we "know about God," we have heard from other people (or via books).
And I do think we must agree that all we "know about God," we have heard from other people (or via books).
I do not see any middle way here.
Either we submit unselectively to people who claim to talk about God, or we refrain any and all interest in God.
the health thing was an analogy
I think it fits very well with them. I can't think of any religious tradition which depicts perfected religious existence as offering a lesser state 9even if we want to include trappist monks as a majority)
What sort of progression are you expecting to see?
and you don't think its odd to discuss why theists do things without bringing scripture to the discussion?
My point is that majority rules is not the effective paltform to begin investigation.
For instance the highest number of population being obedient to the discipline of physics would be high school students.
Investigation of the basis of physics/how its knowledge benefits others, etc happens at an entirely different population base
A high school student isn't a "practitioner" of physics?
Or do you think that there is a higher grade of "practitioner" which one should lodge such investigations against?
Something other than service to god?
I doubt it ...
Of course. I meant it is not clear to me their spiritual health improves. I see many people become hardened and judgmental, superior and cold - these heading into the more head oriented eastern religions like some Buddhisms. Other problematic traits either harden or worsen in many when they enter other traditions. To say nothing of what people do because of God in the expansionist religions. I can't accept as an obvious truth that people become 'healthy' when they enter religions.
We were talking about theists and what they do. If they do this, they do it. If they do not do it they don't. If we shift over to seeing what scripture says, we find out what scripture says, but, then, we were talking about what theists do.
It is an effective platform if one is discussing what the majority does.
Perhaps you are not responding to my posts, which began with the issue of what theists do, and fitting it into the thread as a whole or what other people are saying.
I felt like your original comments about what 'is done' and what 'is not done' were misleading in the extreme. Actions are taken by people. To me responding as if the rules were for what theists do what you said they were was misleading. I even highlighted my focus by saying perhaps you meant it personally, BUT if you meant it generally I thought it was problematic. I then began to speak about theists.
You seem to want to say that we can't judge a religion or religion in general by the majority of its participants.
But I made it utterly clear that I was judging the participants.
I've encountered many of the higher practitioners in both the West and East, as judged by their traditions. I include them in my estimates of what most are doing.
Oh, sure at some extreme level of abstraction. But they would not see bowing down to your guru as a service to God, quite the opposite for most theists.
But even more important, I looked back at the post to see what you were responding to here and noted that I made it clear I was talking about practitioners there also in that post.
See if you can address the issue I have raised and rather clearly since my entrance into this thread. Or if you think it is off topic, ignore it.
You know something?
You sound like someone who believes that life is all about running around meadows and picking flowers.
Perhaps you need to visit the US or Europe, to get a taste or and for religious conflict and exclusivism.
Oz is Oz, after all.
You yet need to learn to fear God.
You yet need to learn to fear religion.
You yet need to learn to fear theists.
If you want to learn to be able to relate to us, that is.
You are still not relating to us.
What we have experienced with theists in general simply cannot be, apparantly. That I would question unqualified generalizations:
And get no concession at all - in other words, his responses would indicate that if you had different experiences, in fact you only thought you did. A phenomenon that could enter a discussion of degree, at least, is taken up as if a simple summation of all theists as not doing these things is the case.
To me this means that something cannot be true, must not be true for this person. And no one who brings up this phenomenon can be validated in any way. The idea must be denied in total.
Let alone the way the issue kept being shifted towards RELIGION and its worth - in his exchange with me - despite a clearly stated focus, a number of times, by me, that I was focusing on the behavior of theists and thought his complete denial of this phenomenon was misleading.
I see these two patterns as indicating that there is some threat in recognizing the existence of this phenomenon. Perhaps in a primarily atheist forum and concession of a point feels like the beginning of the end.
I don't know.
But given that he considers theists to be in various stages of spiritual evolutions, his analogies to prep schools - which begin quite young - and universities, one would think it could be possible that prep school theists might make statements lightly about God - immaturely one could say 'in analogy' or even in a kind of disconnected rather than grounded way. Both fairly common patterns for young people when discussing a wide variety of issues they really do not understand as well as they think they do, and also issues they may not understand the gravity of, or how speaking about them in certain ways is not appropriate.
But despite his sense that most religions and theists are early stages - though still good for those theists who are in those early stages compared to him - it still cannot be that this majority of the world's theists could be doing the things that trouble you. It is still not possible that a significant minority could be doing this. In fact a general, complete denial of the phenomenon, despite my efforts to challenge it, is the only thing he is comfortable with. It does not happen.
If we take him as a theist striving to be humble and considering this trait important - with a great deal of time to mull over statements - and take his posts as relaying what he considers knowledge - since it is knowledge he feels one is obligated to share - we would have to question to some degree our own sanity,
since we cannot have had the experiences we have had. That is what we are being told. Or we are interpreting them in completely false ways.
Or we can assume that there are reasons this phenomenon must be denied in a blanket way and not take his responses as the humble sharing of knowledge in the service of God.
And for me, even though I no longer feel crazy when talking to someone who is doing this, there is nothing for me to gain from continuing the conversation.
If I want a phenomenon to be blanket denied in precisely this style of argument - where trying to make the other person look foolish and least charitable interpretations are the rule - I could discuss some of my religious experiences with atheists here.
The form is the same, even if here it is a theist denying a phenomenon.
Last edited:
Positive bases of existence are difficult because of conditioning. In Puritan times exposing any flesh was bad or negative. In modern times, this does nit hae the same level of polarization simply because we now condition ourselves differently. If you live in culture and wish to relate you need to play by the rules of social conditioning. If you don't need to fit in all the time, you can recondition yourself. But as soon as you try to relate this to others who are conditioned differently they will try to polarize you back by making a unified perception look crazy or foolish.
There is a logical reason for the polarized approach to reality. It is connected to knowledge of good and evil. Any law of good and evil implies two polarized emotional valences at the same time. Law implies a good path leading to health, peace, acceptance, etc. and a bad path leading to fear, pain, etc. Since memory is created in conjunction with the limbic system which has a connection to emotional valence, law type memory is stored in two places in the brain since each behavior is mutually exclusive. Symbolically, the summation of all the light sides of law is heaven and the sum of all dark sides of law is hell.
In symbolic hell all the violation of all the law and all the negative emotions of law are all in one place. There are killers, rapists, pain, suffering, etc. In heaven are all the positive sides of all law, love, peace, sharing, caring, community, obeying the rules, etc.
The ego can only be conscious of one thing at a time, which means one side of the dual memory of law is n various stages of unconscious. This creates what appears to be an instinctive polarization of reality perception. But this is leanred and not instinct. To have a unified perception of reality you need to neutralize the internal polarization of a lifetime. Once the inside changes so does the outside world. Paul in the bible discusses this.
He said I would not know about coveting if the law did not say, thou shall not covet. This creates the inner polarization. Then sin taking opportunity through the commandment produced coveting of all kinds. Trying to do good represses the dark side of the law which is implied by the good side. The unconscious then becomes polarized to the ego.
He then says sin is not impuned when there is no law. Before a law is created there is no polarization and no sin. As soon as we add it to the pile, the sum of all law can animate it more than it really is.
He then says all things are lawful to me. But not all things deify. All things are lawful to me but I will not be mastered by anything. His position was to neutralize law by taking away its power to polarize him. There was no good or evil, except in an objective way. There was only love.
This is not philosophical but based on a memory sweep. Adam and Eve symbolized when humans lost that unity due to law of good and evil.
There is a logical reason for the polarized approach to reality. It is connected to knowledge of good and evil. Any law of good and evil implies two polarized emotional valences at the same time. Law implies a good path leading to health, peace, acceptance, etc. and a bad path leading to fear, pain, etc. Since memory is created in conjunction with the limbic system which has a connection to emotional valence, law type memory is stored in two places in the brain since each behavior is mutually exclusive. Symbolically, the summation of all the light sides of law is heaven and the sum of all dark sides of law is hell.
In symbolic hell all the violation of all the law and all the negative emotions of law are all in one place. There are killers, rapists, pain, suffering, etc. In heaven are all the positive sides of all law, love, peace, sharing, caring, community, obeying the rules, etc.
The ego can only be conscious of one thing at a time, which means one side of the dual memory of law is n various stages of unconscious. This creates what appears to be an instinctive polarization of reality perception. But this is leanred and not instinct. To have a unified perception of reality you need to neutralize the internal polarization of a lifetime. Once the inside changes so does the outside world. Paul in the bible discusses this.
He said I would not know about coveting if the law did not say, thou shall not covet. This creates the inner polarization. Then sin taking opportunity through the commandment produced coveting of all kinds. Trying to do good represses the dark side of the law which is implied by the good side. The unconscious then becomes polarized to the ego.
He then says sin is not impuned when there is no law. Before a law is created there is no polarization and no sin. As soon as we add it to the pile, the sum of all law can animate it more than it really is.
He then says all things are lawful to me. But not all things deify. All things are lawful to me but I will not be mastered by anything. His position was to neutralize law by taking away its power to polarize him. There was no good or evil, except in an objective way. There was only love.
This is not philosophical but based on a memory sweep. Adam and Eve symbolized when humans lost that unity due to law of good and evil.
Dymridder you should try to come up with your own ideas instead of constantly being a parasite for attention, on the backs of others. You appear to be frustrated with your life and enjoy being abusive to others. We're you stuffed into a locker as a child?
Actually dymridder is a good example of this internal polarization. It's seems to creates this need to
Polarize his position to anyone else he projects as evil. He sees what he thinks is clear cut right wrong creating the polarization. Science and thought is a work in progress and just is.
Actually dymridder is a good example of this internal polarization. It's seems to creates this need to
Polarize his position to anyone else he projects as evil. He sees what he thinks is clear cut right wrong creating the polarization. Science and thought is a work in progress and just is.
And maybe you should:
A) give up on the amateur psychology (you're really not very good at it),
B) making statements with zero factual basis, and
C) making unsupported assumptions.
Oh, and also stop deliberately mis-spelling my user name.
Any more and I'll report you.
A) give up on the amateur psychology (you're really not very good at it),
B) making statements with zero factual basis, and
C) making unsupported assumptions.
Oh, and also stop deliberately mis-spelling my user name.
Any more and I'll report you.